Popular

Community

GPB Passport is the new member benefit that provides you with extended access to an on-demand library of quality local and national public television programming, including tens of thousands of hours of your favorite programs.

The justices, in their decision, upheld a lower court ruling that invalidated Alice Corp.'s patents, which were challenged by CLS International. But, as SCOTUSblog notes: "[T]he Supreme Court leaves room for software patents, just not those that take an abstract idea and provide for a computer to implement it."

The Associated Press reports:

"The justices ruled unanimously that the government should not have issued a patent to Alice Corp. in the 1990s because the company simply took an abstract idea that has been around for years and programmed it to run through a computer.

"The decision makes clear that to obtain a patent, a company's idea must actually improve how a computer functions or make other technical advancements."

And here's more from SCOTUSblog on the impact of the decision: "The case is more of a stepping stone than pathbreaking."

Technology companies like Google and Facebook were closely watching the case and had urged clearer rules for software patents.

"Alice Corp. owns patents on a process of verifying payment on a computer. The company says it's a special method. Alice Corp. is what is called a nonpracticing entity known pejoratively as a 'patent troll.' "

"They don't in fact sell a software or a program," Mark Lemley, a law professor at Stanford University, told Laura.

He said Alice Corp. claims it has a patent on using a computer to confirm a financial transaction and says anyone using a computer process to do this should pay the company a fee. That's what CLS Bank, which settles foreign exchange transactions, had challenged. On Thursday, the court sided with CLS.